Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Prashant Kumar Mishra on Wednesday (October 29) upheld the conviction and life sentence of three individuals who were part of a six-member group involved in a fatal assault in Pune district. The Court held that, irrespective of their individual acts, the appellants were vicariously liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object and acting with overt intent. It affirmed the Bombay High Court’s decision, noting that consistent eyewitness and medical evidence established their participation in the coordinated attack that led to one death and grievous injuries to two others.

The case arose from an incident on April 27, 1999, in village Kari, Pune district, during wedding ceremonies in the Gholap family. The prosecution alleged that six men formed an unlawful assembly and attacked a group returning from Bhor, resulting in the death of one person and serious injuries to two others.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Former Labour Official | Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes Without Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Cannot Sustain Conviction Under PC Act

According to the evidence, the accused arrived on two motorcycles armed with sharp weapons such as knives and a sattur. They stopped a jeep carrying the victims, removed its keys, dragged the passengers out, and assaulted them. The deceased sustained fatal injuries, while two others suffered grievous wounds. Medical testimony confirmed multiple incised wounds on vital organs, including the heart, liver, and brain, consistent with the use of sharp weapons.

The Sessions Court convicted two accused of murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and one under Section 307 IPC, while acquitting three others. The State appealed the acquittal, and the Bombay High Court reversed it, holding the three acquitted persons guilty under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, finding that they shared a common object with the group.

The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in reversing a well-reasoned acquittal. They argued that no common object or recovery was proven and that contradictions existed among witnesses. The State, however, maintained that the appellants’ active presence, coordination, and facilitation of the armed assault established their liability as members of the unlawful assembly. The provisions invoked included Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the IPC, and Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Bench observed that appellate interference with acquittal “must be exercised with great caution,” but is permissible “where the findings of the Trial Court are manifestly perverse, unreasonable or contrary to the evidence on record.” Referring to Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Court stated that “an appellate court possesses full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions if the view taken by the trial court is not reasonably sustainable.”

After examining the record, the Court observed that “the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court suffered from a fundamental misappreciation of evidence” and that the High Court had given “cogent and well-reasoned findings based on a proper appraisal of the record.” It found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to be “natural, coherent and mutually corroborative on all material particulars,” consistently showing that the accused “arrived at the scene on two motorcycles armed with deadly weapons such as knives and sattur” and “actively facilitated the commission of the offence by accompanying the co-accused persons, ensuring the confinement of the victims and participating in the coordinated assault.”

The Court noted that medical evidence strongly corroborated the prosecution’s case. It recorded that the deceased “died due to haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries to vital organs like heart, liver, kidney, intestinal vessels and brain,” while the injured witnesses sustained grievous wounds caused by similar weapons.

Addressing the defence contention, the Bench stated: “The principal defence advanced on behalf of the appellants is that there was no common object to commit murder… This contention is untenable in light of the evidence on record.” It found that “all the accused persons, including the appellants, arrived together, armed with lethal weapons and jointly executed a deliberate and coordinated assault on the deceased and other victims.”

Also Read: Criminal Prosecution Quashed After Exoneration in Departmental and Vigilance Inquiries: Delhi High Court

In its reasoning, the Court expressly referred to Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, noting that in that precedent, it was held that “it is not necessary for each member of the unlawful assembly to have committed a specific overt act. Once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.” The Bench applied this principle, observing that the appellants’ conduct demonstrated shared intent and active participation, making them liable under Section 149 IPC.

The Court stated: “Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present appeals. The conviction and sentence imposed on accused no. 3, 4 and 6 (the appellants herein) by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2011 are affirmed. The appeals are dismissed as devoid of merit.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellant(s): Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sewa Singh Sahu, Adv. Ms. Shalu Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Arun Hirulkar, Adv. Ms. Archy Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.

Case Title: Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1266
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2011 & 150–151 of 2013
Bench: Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra